Subscribe To

Sunday, 11 June 2017

An attack on Iran was always the aim

Tehran
Was Always America's and Thus the Islamic State's Final Destination

Several were left dead and many more injured after coordinated
terror attacks on Iran's capital of Tehran. Shootings and bombings
targeted Iran's parliament and the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini.

According
to Reuters,
the so-called "Islamic State" claimed responsibility for
the attack, which unfolded just days after another terror attack
unfolded in London. The Islamic State also reportedly took
responsibility for the violence in London, despite evidence emerging
that the three suspects involved were long-known to British security
and intelligence agencies and were simply allowed to plot and carry
out their attacks.

It
is much less likely that Tehran's government coddled terrorists -as
it has been engaged for years in fighting terrorism both on its
borders and in Syria amid a vicious six-year war fueled by US,
European, and Persian Gulf weapons, cash, and fighters.

Armed
Violence Targeting Tehran Was the Stated Goal of US Policymakers

The
recent terrorist attacks in Tehran are the literal manifestation of
US foreign policy. The creation of a proxy force with which to fight
Iran and establishing a safe haven for it beyond Iran's borders have
been long-stated US policy. The current chaos consuming Syria and
Iraq - and to a lesser extent in southeast Turkey - is a direct
result of the US attempting to secure a base of operations to launch
a proxy war directly against Iran.

The
United states could also attempt to promote external Iranian
opposition groups, providing them with the support to turn themselves
into full-fledged insurgencies and even helping them militarily
defeat the forces of the clerical regime. The United states could
work with groups like the Iraq-based National council of resistance
of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK),
helping the thousands of its members who, under Saddam Husayn’s
regime, were armed and had conducted guerrilla and terrorist
operations against the clerical regime. although the NCRI is
supposedly disarmed today, that could quickly be changed.

Brookings
policymakers admitted throughout the report that MEK was responsible
for killing both American and Iranian military personnel,
politicians, and civilians in what was clear-cut terrorism. Despite
this, and admissions that MEK remained indisputably a terrorist
organization, recommendations were made to de-list it from the US
State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organization registry so that
more overt support could be provided to the group for armed regime
change.

Based
on such recommendations and intensive lobbying, the US State
Department would eventually de-list MEK in 2012 and the group would
receive significant backing from the US openly. This included support
from many members of current US
President Donald Trump's campaign team-
including Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and John Bolton.

However,
despite these efforts, MEK was not capable then or now of
accomplishing the lofty goal of instigating full-fledged insurrection
against Tehran, necessitating the use of other armed groups. The 2009
Brookings paper made mention of other candidates under a section
titled, "Potential Ethnic Proxies," identifying Arab and
Kurdish groups as well as possible candidates for a US proxy war
against Tehran.

Under
a section titled, "Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven,"
Brookings notes:

Of
equal importance (and potential difficulty) will be finding a
neighboring country willing to serve as the conduit for U.S. aid to
the insurgent group, as well as to provide a safe haven where
the group can train, plan, organize, heal, and resupply.

For
the US proxy war on Syria, Turkey and Jordan fulfill this role. For
Iran, it is clear that US efforts would have to focus on establishing
conduits and safe havens from Pakistan's southwest
Balochistan provinceand
from Kurdish-dominated regions in northern Iraq, eastern Syria, and
southeastern Turkey - precisely where current upheaval is being
fueled by US intervention both overtly and covertly.

Brookings
noted in 2009 that:

It
would be difficult to find or build an insurgency with a high
likelihood of success. The existing candidates are weak and divided,
and the Iranian regime is very strong relative to the potential
internal and external challengers.

A
group not mentioned by Brookings in 2009, but that exists in the very
region the US seeks to create a conduit and safe haven for a proxy
war with Iran, is the Islamic State. Despite claims that it is an
independent terrorist organization propelled by black market oil
sales, ransoms, and local taxes, its fighting capacity, logistical
networks, and operational reach demonstrates vast state
sponsorship.The
Ultimate Proxy, the Perfect Conduit and Safe Haven

The
Islamic State reaching into Iran, southern Russia, and even as far as
western China was not only possible, it was inevitable and the
logical progression of US policy as stated by Brookings in 2009 and
verifiably executed since then.

The
Islamic State represents the perfect "proxy," occupying the
ideal conduit and safe haven for executing America's proxy war
against Iran and beyond. Surrounding the Islamic State's holdings are
US military bases, including those illegally constructed in eastern
Syria. Were the US to wage war against Iran in the near future, it is
likely these assets would all "coincidentally" coordinate
against Tehran just as they are now being "coincidentally"
coordinated against Damascus.

The
use of terrorism, extremists, and proxies in executing US foreign
policy, and the use of extremists observing the Islamic State and Al
Qaeda's brand of indoctrination was demonstrated definitively during
the 1980's when the US with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and
Pakistan - used Al Qaeda to expel Soviet forces from Afghanistan.
This example is in fact mentioned explicitly by Brookings
policymakers as a template for creating a new proxy war - this time
against Iran.

For
the US, there is no better stand-in for Al Qaeda than its successor
the Islamic State. US policymakers have demonstrated a desire to use
known terrorist organizations to wage proxy war against targeted
nation-states, has previously done so in Afghanistan, and has clearly
organized the geopolitical game board on all sides of Iran to
facilitate its agenda laid out in 2009. With terrorists now killing
people in Tehran, it is simply verification that this agenda is
advancing onward.

Iran's
involvement in the Syrian conflict illustrates that Tehran is well
aware of this conspiracy and is actively defending against it both
within and beyond its borders. Russia is likewise an ultimate target
of the proxy war in Syria and is likewise involved in resolving it in
favor of stopping it there before it goes further.

China's
small but expanding role in the conflict is linked directly to the
inevitability of this instability spreading to its western Xianjiang
province.

While
terrorism in Europe, including the recent London attack, is held up
as proof that the West is "also" being targeted by the
Islamic State, evidence suggests otherwise. The attacks are more
likely an exercise in producing plausible deniability.

In
reality, the Islamic State - like Al Qaeda before it - depends on
vast, multinational state sponsorship - state sponsorship the US,
Europe, and its regional allies in the Persian Gulf are providing. It
is also sponsorship they can - at anytime of their choosing - expose
and end. They simply choose not to in pursuit of regional and global
hegemony.

The
2009 Brookings paper is a signed and dated confession of the West's
proclivity toward using terrorism as a geopolitical tool. While
Western headlines insist that nations like Iran, Russia, and China
jeopardize global stability, it is clear that they themselves do so
in pursuit of global hegemony.